Better to be temporarily stupid than permanently ignorant like in your case.
Sad part is, you aren't even aware of how ignorant you really are.
You lied. Period.Hey, it's not a lie, it's an opinion first off, and second, I seriously doubt you'ld pay if you lost is all, nothing personal.
You don't have to get your panties in an uproar.
I doubt you'll even remember you made the bet by the time it happens one way or another.
Don't be so serious, this is just a sports message board, not a mafia betting ring.
Calm down.
You're too stupid to know the difference between factual claim and opinion.
You don't have to get so upset over an opinion.
Calm down.
Quit melting down and taking things so seriously, you'll have a heart attack.
You don't know what a meltdown is any more than you know what Paypal is
Sure I don't.
But you being a moron, you don't even know you are a moron.
You exist in blissful ignorance.
Aug 21, 2014, 1:05pm CDT
Raiders could enjoy greater financial success in San Antonio, Cisneros says
W. Scott Bailey
Reporter/Project Coordinator- San Antonio Business Journal
Forbes has released its latest ranking of NFL teams based on franchise valuations.
All but seven of the league’s 32 teams are, according to Forbes, worth $1 billion or more. The Oakland Raiders are one of the unfortunate few franchises not currently in the billionaires’ club.
The Raiders rank No. 28, with their current value assessed at $970 million — or about $2.2 billion less than the Dallas Cowboys, who haven’t secured a playoff spot since 2009.
At least three of the seven teams below the billion-dollar cutoff — the Chargers, Raiders and Rams, have serious concerns with their current stadium situations and could seek greener pastures in new cities.
Of particular interest to San Antonio are the Raiders, which face a number of challenges in Oakland, including limited revenue opportunities.
Forbes projects that the Raiders will generate $244 million in revenue in 2014. The Cowboys and Texans, for example, are projected to generate $560 million and $339 million, respectively, this year.
One of the challenges in Oakland is that the Raiders have to share their stadium, O.co Coliseum, as well as their concessions revenue, with the A’s.
Furthermore, the Raiders have to share the Bay Area market with the San Francisco 49ers, ranked No. 9 on Forbes’ latest NFL team valuaton list.
Davis is so frustrated with the situation in Oakland that he is actively exploring stadium options outside of Northern California. The team’s current lease expires at the end of this season.
Former San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros met with Davis in Oakland, setting the stage for a series of talks between the owner and a number of local leaders in San Antonio last month about the potential relocation of the Raiders to the Alamo City.
I asked Cisneros if he believes the Raiders could generate more revenue and if Davis could raise the value of his franchise with a move to San Antonio. His response: “Yes, I do.”
The Raiders could move into the 65,000-seat Alamodome, which does not have a Major League Baseball tenant taking up venue dates and concessions revenue. Davis and other Raiders representatives toured the downtown stadium while in San Antonio.
“When we walked into the dome, which was set up for football, we entered from the ground level. It was stunning to see the scale of the building, the quality of the building and the investments that have been made,” Cisneros says.
“Every member of the team was impressed,” adds Cisneros about Raiders officials’ reaction to the Alamodome. “When you actually see the facility and what is possible there, it’s nothing short of amazing.”
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantoni...uccess-in.html
Raiders pls
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-...eal-in-oakland
Report: Raiders getting closer to stadium deal in Oakland
By John Breech | CBSSports.com
September 3, 2014 1:24 pm ET
The Raiders don't have a stadium deal in Oakland yet, but apparently they're getting close. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the development team for the Oakland mayor's office has worked out a deal that would give the Raiders free land in Oakland to build the stadium on.
Under the proposed deal, taxpayers would be on the hook for $120 million. However, that money wouldn't go towards the new stadium; it would go toward paying off money still owed on O.co Coliseum, where the Raiders and baseball's Athletics currently play.
Taxpayers wouldn't be paying for any part of the actual stadium, which will cost somewhere between $900 million and $1.2 billion.
However, not all the 'i's and lower-case 'j's have been dotted in this deal yet. As of right now, it's not clear how the financially strapped city of Oakland would raise the $120 million.
"That's a great question that we will probably not say anything about," a spokesman for the Mayor's office told the Chronicle on Tuesday.
So that seems to be an issue. There could also be an issue with the Athletics.
The A's recently signed a 10-year lease in Oakland and a new stadium for the Raiders could potentially involve the city needing to tear down O.co., where the A's currently play. Obviously, the A's would need a place to play if their stadium is torn down.
Then there's also the issue of Raiders owner Mark Davis, who would have to sign off on any deal. Back in July, Davis visited San Antonio. The Raiders owner is also believed to have one eye looking toward Los Angeles.
However, Davis has repeatedly said he wants to keep the team in Oakland. Although Davis did say in February that the city was on its 'last chance' to keep the Raiders.
The Raiders lease at O.co expires after the 2014 season, at which point the team is free to move wherever it can find the best deal.
what about isis?
I hope they don't relocate to San Antonio tbh
It's not a done deal as California voters are loathe to tax themselves to pay for sports stadiums.
looks like Tesla is not coming either lol
stop talking and do something about it god damn
I think they are figuring a way to stay in Oakland tbqh.
Like I already said, it would be akin to a miracle for them to relocate to San Antonio.
You are still ing at me about ISIS instead of doing something positive about it, like I already did.
Are you that re ed that I have to post the phone number for you to call?
If not, then call your congressman like I did.
And quit your ing.
ing isn't going to get you anything.
Sounds like a great use of taxpayer funds.
Don't post full EN articles, dumbass.
Just because the Raiders and Oakland have worked out ‘basic terms’ of a new stadium deal doesn’t mean a new stadium will happen
By Matt Bonesteel September 3 at 11:02 AM
(Associated Press)
The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that the Oakland Raiders and the city of Oakland have agreed to the “basic terms” of a deal to build the NFL team a new stadium, which is expected cost between $900 million and $1.2 billion. Under the terms of the prospective deal, the city would give the franchise the land to build the stadium, pay for infrastructure improvements on the land and continue to pay off the $120 million still owed for the expansion of the 48-year-old Coliseum, which helped lure the Raiders back to Oakland from Los Angeles in 1995.
Taxpayers wouldn’t pay for construction of the stadium itself, to be located at a sports, housing and retail complex called Coliseum City. That money would come from “revenue generated by the project, the NFL and other private sources,” the Chronicle reports.
That news is laid out in the first three paragraphs of the Chronicle’s story. The ensuing paragraphs are filled with people casting doubt about whether it’s actually possible. Here’s a look at all the issues such a plan faces.
1.) Raiders owner Mark Davis has been actively looking to move the team.
2.) The city of Oakland doesn’t have a plan in place to pay the $120 million still owed on the current stadium.
3.) The old Coliseum would be demolished. So where would the Oakland A’s play?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...m-will-happen/
As in the other thread, please edit this post to take out the full article. Leave behind the intro paragraphs if you want.
If anyone wants the full article just follow the link.
They already tax the living out of themselves as it is.
Eh, i can think of worse.
you are right, we could have just lit it all on fire instead.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
